Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important context: the requirement of a Coal API key (with header vs per-call options) and the use of 0G Compute with Sealed Inference (TEE). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand authentication and privacy/execution context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The API key setup is necessary but could be more concise. The mention of 'Powered by 0G Compute with Sealed Inference (TEE)' is slightly promotional but does provide transparency about the underlying service. Overall, it is reasonably efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response looks like. It implies a natural language answer but does not explicitly say so. However, the authentication instructions and purpose are clear, and the annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior. For a query tool, this is mostly sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds extra value for coalApiKey by explaining how to provide it (header or per-call) and where to obtain one, which is not in the schema. The merchantId and question parameters are already clear from their schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: ask a natural language question about a merchant's products, policies, or catalog. It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('merchant's products/policies/catalog'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or get_merchant_profile.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the use case ('natural language question') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The setup instructions for the API key add operational context, but there is no mention of sibling tools like search_products or discover_merchants.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.